Scholarlink

Background <p>There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal timing and necessity of implant removal (IR) following fracture healing in children. Although generally recommended between 1 and 12 months after osteosynthesis, IR carries risks such as refracture, infection, and neurovascular injury. This study aimed to evaluate the indications for IR, the timing of removal, and the complications observed during and after implant extraction in pediatric patients.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective study included 115 pediatric patients (mean age: 10.8 years, range: 2–17) who underwent IR following fracture treatment. Data on implant retention duration, type of implant, indication for removal, and post-removal complications were recorded and analyzed.</p> Results <p>IR was most commonly performed in asymptomatic cases upon parental request (90.4%), particularly for forearm fractures. Titanium elastic nails and plate-screw systems were the most frequently removed implants. Post-removal complications included refracture (4.3%), infection (1.7%), incomplete removal (1.7%), radial nerve neuropraxia (0.9%), and wound problems (0.9%). Refractures occurred within 5 to 18 days postoperatively, with the forearm being the most frequently affected region (7.5% of forearm IR cases). No statistically significant association was found between implant type, retention duration, and the occurrence of refracture (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). These findings underscore the importance of patient-specific planning and postoperative protective strategies, especially for forearm IR.</p> Conclusion <p>Implant removal in pediatric patients is generally safe; however, the risk of early refracture, especially in the forearm, highlights the need for short-term activity restrictions and splint immobilization post-removal. Surgeons should clearly communicate the risks and timing of IR with families during the decision-making process.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Complication profile and risk patterns following elective implant removal in pediatric fractures: a 10-year retrospective analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月26日

查看全文
  • Taner Alıç,
  • Seniye Burcu Torumtay Alıç,
  • Soner Gürel,
  • Abdulrahim Dündar,
  • Deniz İpek,
  • Murat Çalbiyik

摘要

Background

There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal timing and necessity of implant removal (IR) following fracture healing in children. Although generally recommended between 1 and 12 months after osteosynthesis, IR carries risks such as refracture, infection, and neurovascular injury. This study aimed to evaluate the indications for IR, the timing of removal, and the complications observed during and after implant extraction in pediatric patients.

Methods

This retrospective study included 115 pediatric patients (mean age: 10.8 years, range: 2–17) who underwent IR following fracture treatment. Data on implant retention duration, type of implant, indication for removal, and post-removal complications were recorded and analyzed.

Results

IR was most commonly performed in asymptomatic cases upon parental request (90.4%), particularly for forearm fractures. Titanium elastic nails and plate-screw systems were the most frequently removed implants. Post-removal complications included refracture (4.3%), infection (1.7%), incomplete removal (1.7%), radial nerve neuropraxia (0.9%), and wound problems (0.9%). Refractures occurred within 5 to 18 days postoperatively, with the forearm being the most frequently affected region (7.5% of forearm IR cases). No statistically significant association was found between implant type, retention duration, and the occurrence of refracture (p > 0.05). These findings underscore the importance of patient-specific planning and postoperative protective strategies, especially for forearm IR.

Conclusion

Implant removal in pediatric patients is generally safe; however, the risk of early refracture, especially in the forearm, highlights the need for short-term activity restrictions and splint immobilization post-removal. Surgeons should clearly communicate the risks and timing of IR with families during the decision-making process.